1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner, WAPDA, seeks leave to appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the Service Tribunal on the 14th June, 1984 whereby the full implication of a status quo order passed by it on the 26th of April, 1984 was clarified.
2. The respondent filed an appeal against the termination of his services which is still pending before the Service Tribunal. He sought interim relief pending the decision in appeal. A status quo order was passed by the Tribunal on 6th of April, 1984. The dispute arose between the parties as to how this status quo order was to be given effect to, i.e. By continuing the respondent in service as was contended by the respondent or by severing his employment in implementation of the impugned order as was contended by the petitioner. The Tribunal after an inquiry into factual aspect of the case, clarified the order in the following words:- "In the result, it is ordered that the status quo order passed on 26-4-1984 is still operative and binding on the respondent and that it shall be maintained till further orders in the main appeal.
3. Meanwhile, the order of termination of the services of the Appellant shall not be treated as operative."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this order is against law and fact for the services of the petitioner with the acceptance of the constitutional petition and consequent to it, stood terminated as from 21st of April, 1984 and he could not be continued in service on the basis of a status quo order passed by the Tribunal.
5. The order against which leave to appeal is sought has to dis--tinctive features. Firstly, it relates to and is sequel to a determination of fact as to when the status quo order was passed by the Tribunal the services of the respondent stood terminated or he was still an employee. Secondly, the order is interlocutory. It lasts as long as an appeal is not decided and is even during that period open to modification if circumstances so justify. A final determination of the appeal on merits is yet to take place. The question raised in the petition do not satisfy the legal requirement of Article 212 of the Constitution i.e. There is no question of law of general public importance such as may require further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.